When power forgets whom it serves

How far will the hunger for power go before the nation begins to pay the price?That is the question that every political generation eventually has to confront: how far are those who hold power prepared to go to keep it?How much compromise is too much? How much institutional damage is acceptable? How much public trust can be consumed in the pursuit of political survival? And at what point does the pursuit of power cease to be about serving the nation and become an exercise in protecting positions, privileges, and personal interests?These are uncomfortable but necessary questions.Because the greatest danger to a republic is not necessarily the existence of ambitious politicians. Political ambition is not, by itself, a vice. The danger begins when ambition becomes more important than institutions, when loyalty to individuals replaces loyalty to principles, and when political power begins to regard the state not as a public trust but as an instrument of parochial private or partisan interest.That is where the line must be drawn.Not a private estateThe state does not belong to any government or individuals.No political party, regardless of their history or contribution to national liberation, belongs to individual personalities.These distinctions may sound obvious. Yet history teaches us that democracies become vulnerable precisely when such distinctions are gradually eroded.The danger does not always arrive dramatically; sometimes it arrives quietly.A critical voice is dismissed while an uncomfortable question is treated as disloyalty. Competence gives way to proximity, and accountability becomes selective. Institutions become increasingly dependent on political personalities.Public resources become instruments of influence and eventually, what should have been regarded as abnormal begins to look normal.That is how institutional decline begins, not always even with a ‘coup de Palais,' but sometimes with the slow normalization of practices that should never have become acceptable.Controlling powerThe question, therefore, cannot simply be ‘who is in power?’ The deeper question is who holds power accountable? And beyond that, who holds accountable those whose responsibility is to hold power accountable? Funny enough, those who spent years planning to take over power are the same people blocking others from taking over power and usually do not want to be held accountable. A functioning democracy cannot depend entirely on the personal virtue of whoever occupies office.Institutions exist precisely because human beings are fallible and because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Parliaments exist to exercise oversight functions and scrutinize.Courts exist to uphold the law. Auditors exist to examine the use of public resources. The media exists, among other things, to ask uncomfortable questions.Civil society exists to provide another layer of public scrutiny. And citizens have the right to demand answers from those entrusted with public authority.Strong institutions do not weaken government. They protect government from becoming arbitrary. They also protect citizens from becoming powerless.African lessonAfrica’s political history offers enough evidence to remind us that liberation from colonial rule did not automatically guarantee liberation from the abuse of power.The struggle for political independence was fundamentally about reclaiming sovereignty.But sovereignty is not fulfilled merely because a national flag flies over a government building.True sovereignty also requires institutions capable of serving citizens rather than personalities.It requires governments that understand that public resources belong to the public. It requires personalities and political parties that recognize that their historical contribution does not place them permanently above scrutiny.And it requires citizens who understand that patriotism does not mean remaining silent in the face of wrongdoing. A country does not become stronger because its citizens stop asking questions. It becomes stronger when institutions are strong enough to withstand those questions.That lesson remains relevant across the continent, including in countries whose democratic credentials and liberation histories are rightly sources of national pride. History should be respected, but history should never become a license for impunity.Silence isn’t loyaltyThere is a particularly dangerous political culture in which loyalty is measured by silence.The loyal official is expected not to question. The loyal party member is expected not to disagree. The loyal citizen is expected not to challenge, but what kind of loyalty is that?If a government is heading towards a bad decision, is the loyal person the one who remains silent or the one courageous enough to say, this is wrong?If a public institution is failing, is loyalty demonstrated by protecting its reputation or by demanding that it improves? If public money is being mismanaged, is patriotism demonstrated by silence or by asking where the money went? These are not abstract philosophical questions. They determine whether institutions serve society or merely protect themselves. Silence may preserve a position. It does not necessarily preserve a nation.*Paul T. Shipale (with inputs by Folito Nghitongovali Diawara Gaspar). The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of our employers but our personal views as citizens and Pan-Africanists.

When power forgets whom it serves

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-19

Please login to leave a comment

When power forgets whom it serves

Comments

Namibian Sun 2026-10-19

Please login to leave a comment

Subscription Required to Access Content ×

Login

Subscription Required to Access Content